Hon'ble AHLUWALIA, J.—Ratlai, a small town, having education facilities, is situated in District Jhalawar. Bajrang Lal (P.W.4), the complainant is a resident of village Kishanpura, which is at a distance of 8 kms. from Ratlai. The complainant had taken a room on rent in the house of one Dev Lal at Ratlai and had left his two sons to pursue their studies at Ratlai. Elder son Dwarka Lal aged 18 years and was a student of 10th Class, whereas younger son Bhagwan Singh, aged 8 years was studying in 3rd Class. 2. On 19.12.2003, Bhagwan Singhleft house with some unknown person on Hero Honda Splendor Motorcycle. On 20.12.2003, Bajrang Lal (PW-4), got a statement recorded before A.S.I., Kanhaiya Lal (PW-25). On the basis of statement formal FIR (Exhibit-P/4) was registered at Police Station Bakani, District Jhalawar. In his statement, Bajrang Lal (PW-4) (PW-4) statd that he is having two sons, namely Dwarka Lal ged 18years and Bhagwan Singh aged 8 years. Since July, 2003, to pursue their studies, they were residing in a room taken on rent in the house of Dev Lal, resident of Kishanpura. On 20.12.2003 at about 10.00 a.m., elder son Dwarka came from Ratlai to the house of the complainant to village Kishanprua and informed that in the evening of 19.12.2003, at about 7.00 p.m., one person came on black colour Splendor motorcycle, upon which 'Jai Shri Ram' was written. The said motorcycle was not having number plate in the front or in the rear. The said person informed that your father has purchased a new motorcycle and has called your younger brother. Upon which, Bhagwan Singh accompanied the said person on the motorcycle. In the morning when Dwarka Lal was cleaning the house, a boy living in the adjoining room handed over a letter. Letter was addressed to the complainant Bajrang Lal. In the letter is was written that in case you want that no harm is caused to your son, bring Rs. 2 lakhs in bag on Sunday evening at 7.00 p.m. at Bhawrasa Road. The notes should be of denomination of Rs.100/- and Rs.500/-. No body should be informed, otherwise your son will be killed. Copy of the letter was presented to the Investigating Officer, on the same day. 2 lakhs in bag on Sunday evening at 7.00 p.m. at Bhawrasa Road. The notes should be of denomination of Rs.100/- and Rs.500/-. No body should be informed, otherwise your son will be killed. Copy of the letter was presented to the Investigating Officer, on the same day. The complainant also gave description of the person who took his son upon the motorcycle as under: "Short height, wheatish complexion, light weight body, small pointed moustache, wearing pant and shirt." 3. The complainant also stated that his son was wearing blue pant, white shirt and half sleeve blue Jersy and was a student of 3rd class. 4. Bhagwan Singh, the victim (PW-10), on 27.12.2003, ws fond by Dilraj (PW-8) and Shafi Mohammad (PW-9), in the waiting room of Bus Stand Patan or in an inn near Bus Stand Patan. 5. On the same day, on 27.12.2003, at about 11.30 p.m., the child was handed over to his father Bajrang Lal (PW-4) vide Exhibit-P/9. On 27.12.2003, statement of Bhagwan Singh was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On 30.12.2003, vide Exhibit-P/32, Investigating Officer arrested accused Nanda @ Nandu Singh. On the same day, vide arrest memo Exhibit-P/33, the Investigating Officer arrested Narayan @ Ram Narayan and vide arrest memo Exhibit-P/35, Chandu @ Chandra Prakash was arrested. Dwarka Lal son of Rodumal, was arrested on 31.12.2003 vide arrest memo Exhibit-P/34. 6. FIR registered at Police Station, Bakani, District Jhalawar was investigated and report of Investigation u/Sec. 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the court of concerned Magistrate and the same along with the accused as committed to Court of Sessions. The trial of the case was entrusted to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jhalawar. After conclusion of the trial, all the four accused persons were convicted for the offence under Section 364-A read with 120-B IPC and were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default thereof to further undergo S.I. for one year. 7. D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1231/2004 has been preferred by Narayan @ Ram Narayan, Nanda @ Nandu Singh and Dwarka Lal son of Rodu Lal, to challenge the judgment dated 10.8.2004, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced. A separate appeal D.B. Criminal Appeal No.950/2004 has been preferred by Chandra Prakash @ Chandu to assail the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. A separate appeal D.B. Criminal Appeal No.950/2004 has been preferred by Chandra Prakash @ Chandu to assail the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. By this common judgment, we shall decide both the appeals. 8. The prosecution in all has examined 36 witnesses. They can be broadly divided into five sets. 9. The first set of witnesses regarding kidnapping/abduction and demand of ransom, consist of Bajrang Lal, the complainant (PW-4), Bhagwan Singh, the victim (PW-10), Dwarka Lal, brother of victim (PW-29), and Radhey Shyam, Investigating Officer (PW-26). 10. Regarding involvement of accused, deposition of witness Brajesh Panwar (PW-20), who being Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar on 7.1.2004, had conducted Test Identification Parade (for short, 'TIP') of the accused, is also relevant. 11. Bhagwan Singh (PW-10), the victim in TIP had identified all the four accused appellants who were involved in this abduction. Dwarka Lal (PW-29), had identified Narayan @ Ram Narayan, who on 19.12.2003 came to the house where children were residing and took away Bhagwan Singh, the victim. Another witness Smt. Lizi George PW-1, a Nurse, who was residing in room on the ground floor, where the children were residing and Mithu Lal (PW-5), have not supported the prosecution case and have refused to identify the accused and have also been declared as hostile witnesses by the prosecution. 12. The second set of witnesses regarding recovery of child, Dilraj (PW8), stated that on 27.12.2003, he found a child sitting in an inn (waiting room) near Bus Stand, Patan. He recognized the child as Bhagwan Singh. Shafi Mohammad (PW-9), stated that he was accompanying Dilraj (PW-8) and they on 27.12.2003 found a child at Bus Stand, Patan. 13. The third set of witnesses is regarding stay of abducted child Bhagwan Singh PW-10 with accused. Nanda @ Nand Singh, the accused appellant was married with one Laxmi (PW-13). However, after marriage Gona had not taken place. Laxmi (PW-13) was residing with her parents. Number of witnesses had been examined to say that after the victim Bhagwan Singh was abducted, Nanda @ Nand Singh, for a period of 6-7 days, stayed with the family of Laxmi, his wife. We will notice deposition of witnesses pertaining to stay of child with them along with accused. 14. Ghanshyam (PW-12), deposed that his sister was married with Nanda @ Nand Singh. We will notice deposition of witnesses pertaining to stay of child with them along with accused. 14. Ghanshyam (PW-12), deposed that his sister was married with Nanda @ Nand Singh. Nanda @ Nand Singh being son-in-law ( tekbZ ) had visited their house accompanied by a child. Nanda @ Nand Singh stayed in their house with a child for about 5 to 7 or 8 days. The accused during the stay of child, once had gone to Kota. 15. Laxmi (PW-13), stated that she was married with Nanda @ Nand Singh. Gona had not taken place. The accused Nanda @ Nand Singh, present in the Court, came with a child, who disclosed his name as Bhagwan Singh. To similar effect, is the statement of Santosh Bai (PW-14), Bhabhi of Laxmi, being wife of Ghanshyam (PW-12), and Mooli Bai (PW-15), mother of Laxmi. 16. Jamnalal Sharma (PW-16), landlord of the house in which Laxmi (PW-13), along with her relatives was residing has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. 17. Yashwant Chauhan (PW-11) , is also brother of Laxmi. He stated that he learnt that accused Nanda @ Nand Singh had visited along with a child to the house of his mother. Lokesh (PW-17), stated that Nanda @ Nand Singh was son of his maternal uncle. This witness was also examined by the prosecution to say that accused along with child had visited his house. But this witness has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. 18. Ramkanya Bai (PW-18), mother of Lokesh (PW-17), stated that few days ago Nanda @ Nand Singh came with a child, who disclosed his name as Bhagwan Singh. 19. Rambharose (PW-19), father of Lokesh (PW-17) and husband of Ramkanya Bai (PW-19), also stated that his wife disclosed that Nanda @ Nand Singh had come along with a child and after staying for some time, they left the house. 20. Fourth set of witnesses examined by the prosecution is to prove letter Exhibit-P/3 or P/38, whereby ransom was demanded. The prosecution intended to prove that the letter Exhibit P/3 or P/38 where the ransom was demanded was written by accused Chandra Prakash @ Chandu. Except the Investigating Officer Radhey Shyam (PW-26), all other witnesses, to connect the letter Exhibit P/3 or P/38 with Chandra Prakash @ Chandu, have turned hostile and have not proved the prosecution case. 21. The prosecution intended to prove that the letter Exhibit P/3 or P/38 where the ransom was demanded was written by accused Chandra Prakash @ Chandu. Except the Investigating Officer Radhey Shyam (PW-26), all other witnesses, to connect the letter Exhibit P/3 or P/38 with Chandra Prakash @ Chandu, have turned hostile and have not proved the prosecution case. 21. Set of witnesses examined for this purpose and their evidence is being noted for ready reference. 22. Mithu Lal (PW-5), stated that police had recovered two envelopes as sample from his shop. Police did some writing work but obtained his signatures at the police post on blank papers. Alladeen (PW-6) stated that from the shop of Mithu Lal police had taken into possession two envelopes. Both, Alladeen (PW-6) and Mithu Lal (PW-5), however, have not stated a word against Chandra Prakash @ Chandu. 23. Banwari Lal (PW-7), who was examined to say that he had handed over Rs.560/- to Chandra Prakash @ Chandu, at the instance of accused Dwarka Lal, has not supported the prosecution case and has turned hostile. In the Court he stated that Dwarka Lal is not known to him. Dwarka Lal handed over no money to him. 24. Jagannath (PW-22), stated that Dwarka Lal, the accused was earlier employed by Bajrang Lal (PW-4), as Driver on a Tractor. He stated that it is not know to him that who had kidnapped Bhagwan Singh, son of the complainant. He further stated that he had not seen the faces of abductors. He learn that somebody had thrown a letter in relation to kidnapping but as to what was written in the letter is not known to him. This witness was also declared hostile. 25. Devi Lal (PW-23), evidence is based on hearsay. He stated that Bhagwan Singh, the son of complainant was taken by Dwarka Lal accused. He has demanded Rs. 2 lakhs. Bhagwan Singh told him that he was kept at Baran and Bhagwan Singh was recovered after nine days. 26. Onkar Lal (PW-24), stated that in his presence police had not recovered any register or pen from accused Chandra Prakash @ Chandu. Police had obtained his signatures on blank papers. This witness was also declared hostile. 27. Harak Chand (PW-28), stated that on 19.12.2003, Arvind (PW-33), had handed over a letter to him. He further gave letter to Dwarka Lal. reading of the letter revealed that Rs. Police had obtained his signatures on blank papers. This witness was also declared hostile. 27. Harak Chand (PW-28), stated that on 19.12.2003, Arvind (PW-33), had handed over a letter to him. He further gave letter to Dwarka Lal. reading of the letter revealed that Rs. 2 lakhs were demanded as ransom for releasing Bhagwan Singh, the victim. In cross-examination, this witness stated that the letter was not addressed to anybody. He further stated that "he had read the letter and the letter was given to him for reading on the day next to the arrest of the accused." 28. It will be apposite for here to reproduced the vernacular portion of his testimony as under: ^^eSaus fpëh i<+h FkhA ;g ckr lgh gS fd eqyfteku tc fxjrkjh gks x;s mlds nqljs fnu eq>s fpëh i<+us ds fy;s nh FkhA** 29. Ramlal (PW-30), stated that police had not recovered any paper in his presence. Only his signatures were obtained, then said his thumb impressions were obtained. In cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, after being declared hostile, this witness specifically stated that hand writing of Chandra Prakash @ Chandu and Pen were not recovered by police in his presence. 30. Khemchand (PW-31), stated that he heard that the persons who took Bhagwan Singh had thrown some letter. In cross-examination, this witness stated that he had not read the letter as he is illiterate. However, he heard about the letter from others. 31. Banwari Lal (PW-32), has not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile. 32. Arvind (PW-33), stated that he found one letter on the stairs of the house. Arvind was also residing in a room in the same house, where victim Bhagwan Singh (PW-10) and his brother Dwarka Lal (PW-29) were residing. He handed over the same to Master Saab Harak Chand (PW-28). He had read that letter and handed over the same to Dwarka Lal (PW-29). This witness identified the letter (Exhibit P/38) and envelopes (Exhibit P/39). In cross-examination this witness stated that he handed over the envelope without opening the same. 33. Gopal Lal (PW-34), stated that some unidentified men had knocked at the door of his room, and threatened him to relay the information to Ratlai that name of nobody should be disclosed relating to the case. 34. Dhanna Lal (PW-35), stated that Arvind (PW-33), is his son. 33. Gopal Lal (PW-34), stated that some unidentified men had knocked at the door of his room, and threatened him to relay the information to Ratlai that name of nobody should be disclosed relating to the case. 34. Dhanna Lal (PW-35), stated that Arvind (PW-33), is his son. He was also residing in a room on rent, where Bhagwan Singh (PW-10 and Dwarka Lal (PW-29) were residing. He further stated that a letter was received by his won, which was handed over to a teacher. 35. Fifth set of witnesses pertain to those, who had participated and facilitated investigation. We shall also briefly notice their testimony. 36. Radhey Shyam (PW-2), stated that in his presence police had prepared a site plan (Exhibit P/1) of the house at Ratlai. 37. Dunger Singh (PW-3), another witness of the site plan has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. 38. Dishamber Singh (PW-21), Constable posted at Bakani at the relevant time, stated that he received four sealed envelops from Malkhana Incharge and had deposited the same in the office of Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. 39. Dulha Ram (PW36), Head Constable, being incharge of Malkhana has deposed that he handed over four sealed packets to Dishamber Singh (PW21). 40. Having broadly noted the evidence of the various witnesses examined by the prosecution, now we shall take notice of the testimony of material witnesses. 41. Bajrang Lal (PW-4) reiterated as to what was stated in the written complaint. However, in cross-examination he admitted that Dwarka Lal, accused was employed by him on his tractor as a Driver for about 10/12 months. In cross-examination he further admitted that he had purchased 'Bada' for Rs. 33,000/- from Rodu Lal, father of Dwarka Lal, accused. He denied that amount in full was not paid. Again he stated that the dispute was with brother of Rodu Lal. 42. Bhagwan Singh (PW-10), the victim stated that three months before his deposition in Court, he was staying in Ratlai and pursuing studies. He was staying with his brother. They were staying in a house of Dev Lal Master Saab. On the ground floor, a Nurse was residing. On the fateful day, at about 6/7 p.m., one person came on a motorcycle. He said that motorcycle had been purchased by your father and he has called him for performing Arti. That man was wearing pant-shirt and a Safi around neck. On the ground floor, a Nurse was residing. On the fateful day, at about 6/7 p.m., one person came on a motorcycle. He said that motorcycle had been purchased by your father and he has called him for performing Arti. That man was wearing pant-shirt and a Safi around neck. The man who had come to take him on motorcycle was accused Ram Narayan. Motorcycle was of black colour. They got petrol filled in the motorcycle. There were three other persons on motorcycle with him. He sat between them. They took him on motorcycle from Ratlai to Baran, Baran to Kota. They left him at Kota in a Bus by giving Rs.20/-. He alighted from bus. 43. Bhagwan Singh said during his stay that he was kept in hut (Jhopadi) by accused for eight days. Later stated hat he was kept in temple (Mandir). He used to go near river to ease himself. The accused were giving him Roti and Jalebi. Laxmi used to feed him. The man who had taken him on motorcycle was identified in jail. In the court he identified the said man as Narayan @ Ram Narayan. Dwarka Lal was identified as a man who sat on motorcycle at Ratlai. Then the witness identified Nanda @ Nand Singh, as a one who sat on the motorcycle at Patan. Witness after seeing Chand Prakash @ Chandu stated that he cannot identify him. In cross-examination the witness stated that Dwarka Lal during the entire occurrence as not with him. He stated that "Dwarka Lal son of Rodu Lal, Bairwa the accused is resident of his village. Right from the beginning till end he was nowhere with me." 44. Another material admission made by the witness in cross-examination is after 3-4 days, he was take to police station where the accused were shown to him. To be precise in vernacular relevant portion of the cross-examination is reproduced below: ^^}kjdkyky iq= jksMw yky cSjok eqyfte gekjs xkao dk gh gSA ;g 'kq: ls vkf[kj rd bl ?kVuk Øe esa dgha Hkh gekjs lkFk ugha jgkA eSa ikVu cl LVsaM ls vius firk ds lkFk vius ?kj pyk x;k mlds 3&4 fnu ckn gh Fkkus esa eq>s ys x;s ogk eqyfteku dks fn[kk;k Fkk eSaus eqyfteku dks Fkkus esa ns[kkA mlds 5&6 fnu ckn tSy esa ns[ks FksA** 45. Dwarka Lal (PW-29), brother of Bhagwan Singh (PW-10), identified the persons who came to take child Bhagwan Singh, as Narayan @ Ram Narayan. This witness had further stated that 15 days before the occurrence, Dwarka Lal and Chandra Prakash @ Chandu had come to his house and had taken tea. Since this fact was stated for the first time in the Court, the witness was duly confronted with the previous statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit-D/1). The witness stated that he is not aware as to why this fact was not noted in the previous statement recorded by police. 46. At the cost of repetition, it is again stated hat Bhagwan Singh (PW-10), the victim had identified all the four accused in TIP conducted by Brajesh Panwar, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jhalawar (PW-20). 47. Sub-Inspector, Radhey Shyam (PW-26), the Investigating Officer, deposed that after registration of case. On 21.12.2003, he prepared site plan of the spot (Exhibit-P/1). Vide memo (Exhibit-P/2), he also took into possession envelope which contained letter (Exhibit-P/3), whereby ransom was demanded. Thereafter, this witness has gone to Kasba (town) Richhwa, and from 'Prem Kirana Provisional Store', took two envelopes as a sample to compare with the envelope taken into possession. Thereafter, he recovered Bhagwan Singh, the victim from waiting room of Jhalrapatan Bus Stand and handed over the child to his father vide Exhibit-P/9. Later he arranged TIP of the accused. Statements of the various witnesses were recorded. This witness also proved arrest memo of the accused. The fact to be noticed by us is that on 31.12.2003, according to this witness, the accused Chandra Prakash @ Chandu made disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and got recovered one register and pen. This is a register from which allegedly page was torn to write the ransom letter. Investigating Officer took specimen hand writing (Exhibit P/41 to P/49) of the accused Chandra Prakash @ Chandu. The accused was made to write slowly in free hand, and also in normal manner and at a fast speed also. 48. Satya Narayan (PW-27) and Banwari Lal (PW-7), in whose presence recovery of register and pen was affected, from the accused Chandra Prakash @ Chandu have not supported the prosecution case. After conclusion of prosecution case, statement of accused was recorded u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. all incriminating evidence was put to them. 48. Satya Narayan (PW-27) and Banwari Lal (PW-7), in whose presence recovery of register and pen was affected, from the accused Chandra Prakash @ Chandu have not supported the prosecution case. After conclusion of prosecution case, statement of accused was recorded u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. all incriminating evidence was put to them. They denied the same and pleaded false implication. No witness was examined by the accused in defence. 49. Mr. P.R.S. Rajawat and Mr. Ajay Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants has argued that it has come in the evidence of Bhagwan Das (PW-10) that 4/5 days after arrest, accused were shown to the witness in the police station and thereafter TIP was conducted in the jail. It has been contended by the counsel for the appellants that TIP and identification of the accused in the Court after the admission made by victim Bhagwan Singh, in cross-examination is meaningless and same should be ignored. It is contended that in case TIP of the accused is not established, the prosecution case cannot stand on its legs and should be discarded outrightly. It is next submitted that Chandra Prakash @ Chandu, the accused as per evidence of prosecution, was working as a Cleaner with Dwarka Lal, accused and both Dwarka Lal and Chandra Prakash @ Chandu have been falsely implicated as family of Dwarka Lal was having dispute with Bajrang Lal (PW-4), father of the victim. 50. Mr. N.S. Dhakad, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that evidence of Bhagwan Singh (PW-10) it reliable and same has been duly corroborated by his brother Dwarka Lal (PW-29) and, therefore, the learned court below, after considering the evidence, has rightly recorded the conviction of the accused. 51. Having perused the record, evidence led by the witnesses and hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the view that following four questions arise for our consideration: (i) What is the evidentiary value of letter Exhibit-P/3 or P/38 marked as Q1 to Q2, by handwriting expert and opinion of handwriting expert Exhibit-P/56 (Letter Exhibit-P/3 is copy of original letter Exhibit-P/38)? (ii) Whether there is any admissible evidence on record to connect the accused Chandra Prakash @ Chandu with the commission of crime? (iii) If letter demanding ransom is ignored what offence is made out? (iv) Whether conviction of all the accused can be sustained? 52. (ii) Whether there is any admissible evidence on record to connect the accused Chandra Prakash @ Chandu with the commission of crime? (iii) If letter demanding ransom is ignored what offence is made out? (iv) Whether conviction of all the accused can be sustained? 52. We shall take up Question No.(i) and (ii) formulated by us together as the entire prosecution evidence qua these issues is intermingled. Bhagwan Singh (PW-10), the victim though had identified the accused Chandra Prakash @ Chandu in TIP, in the court in very categoric terms asserted that he cannot identify Chandra Prakash @ Chandu. Further perusal of entire evidence reveal that no witness has said anything incriminating against accused Chandra Prakash @ Chandu, except that he was employed by accused Dwarka Lal on his Jeep as a Cleaner. 53. All the witnesses qua Chandra Prakash @ Chandu have turned hostile. They have not supported the prosecution case. We are only left with evidence of Investigating Officer to the effect that he had obtained specimen hand writing of this accused after arrest and having made him write identical letters, in various speed. As per the Investigating Officer Radhey Shyam (PW-26), the accused Chandra Prakash @ Chandu had written letters at a slow, medium and fast speed and these letters (Exhibit-P/41 to P/49) were sent to hand writing expert at FSL. As per opinion (Exhibit-P/56) of FSL, document in question and specimen letters have tallied and were in the hand writing of one and same person. 54. Having noted above evidence, there is nothing with us to hold that the specimen writing was given by the accused voluntarily. Section 311-A Cr.P.C. was introduced in the Code of Criminal Procedure on 23.6.2006. This provision empower Magistrate to direct the accused to give specimen signatures or writing, even though this provision pertain to procedural law, it is detrimental to the accused and cannot be applied retrospectively. Be that as it may, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sukhvinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab reported in ( 1994(5) SCC 152 ), that where specimen hand writing for comparison was obtained, before Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, since he as not authorized person to take that hand writing, such specimen hand writing cannot be used against accused as it becomes doubtful whether the same was given voluntarily or not? vs. State of Punjab reported in ( 1994(5) SCC 152 ), that where specimen hand writing for comparison was obtained, before Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, since he as not authorized person to take that hand writing, such specimen hand writing cannot be used against accused as it becomes doubtful whether the same was given voluntarily or not? This view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amarjit Singh vs. State of U.P. reported in ( 1998(8) SCC 613 ), relying upon case of Sukhwinder Singh (supra). It will be apposite to reproduce Para 7 of Amarjit Singh's judgment (supra) as under: "7. There is, in the first place, no evidence on the record to show that the specimen writing was given by the appellant voluntarily. According to the statement of Magendra Pal Singh, PW-8, he had requested the SDM to take the specimen writing of the appellant and the said writing was obtained from the appellant in the Court of the SDM on 22.6.1985. The SDM has not been examined at the trial for reasons best known to the prosecution. The appellant has denied to have voluntarily given any specimen writing to the SDM. Admittedly, the SDM was neither conducting the inquiry into he case nor was the trial of the case fixed before him. The specimen writing obtained with the directions of the SDM, therefore, were not meant to assist the "Court to form its opinion" as envisaged by Section 73 of the Evidence Act. The specimen writing, under the circumstances, could not be used against the appellant and in taking this view we are fortified by a judgment of this Court in Sukhvinder Singh vs. State of Punjab. This lacuna affects the relevancy of the evidence of the expert in the case". 55. This view was later followed by Division bench of this Court in Rakesh vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2001(1) Crimes 77, and their Lordships held as under:- "16. It is submitted by Mr. Jagmal Singh Chaudhary, learned counsel for the accused Rakesh that the specimen finger prints Ex.P.36 to Ex.P.4 cannot be sued against the accused as in absence of the evidence of S.D.M., there is no evidence to show that the accused had given the specimen finger prints voluntarily. It is not in dispute that the S.D.M. Shri Rajendra Mishra has not been examined at the trial. It is not in dispute that the S.D.M. Shri Rajendra Mishra has not been examined at the trial. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex court in Amarjit Singh vs. State of U.P. reported in 1998 SCC (Cri.) 1609. In the said case, the S.D.M. was not examined and, therefore, it was held that there is no evidence to show that the specimen writing was given by the accused voluntarily. The Hon'ble Supreme Court relying on its decision in Sukhvinder Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in 1949 SCC (Cri.) 1376, held that the specimen writing under such signatures could not be used against the accused. We find substance in the contention advanced by Mr. Chaudhary." 56. No independent witness has been examined to vouchsafe the fact that accused had voluntarily given his specimen hand writing to the Investigating Officer. Furthermore, there is no assurance of the fact that the letter Exhibit-P/3 or P/38, whereby the ransom was demanded and specimen letters Exhibit-P/41 to P/49 were not prepared at the same time. It is pertinent to note that Harak Chand (PW-28), in cross-examination has stated that he has read letter on the next day of the arrest of the accused, whereas, Arvind (PW-33), in cross-examination has stated that envelope was not opened by him and in the same condition he had handed over to Master Saab Harak Chand (PW-28). Possibility that the letter in question Exhibit-P/3 or P/38 and the specimen letters Exhibit-P/41 to P/49 were prepared at the police station simultaneously cannot be ruled out as after the arrest of the accused on 31.12.2003, letter in question Exhibit-P/3 or P/38 and specimen letters Exhibit-P/41 to P/49 were all sent together in four packets on 7.1.2004 through Dishambar Singh (PW-21). 57. Except the statement of Investigating officer, there is no other evidence available with regard to procurement of specimen hand writing. Furthermore, letter whereby ransom was demanded Exhibit-P/3 or P/38, was not produced before any Magistrate or any other public authority or a Gazetted Officer and initials thereupon were not obtained to assure that exactly same letter was available before the arrest of accused. 58. Furthermore, letter whereby ransom was demanded Exhibit-P/3 or P/38, was not produced before any Magistrate or any other public authority or a Gazetted Officer and initials thereupon were not obtained to assure that exactly same letter was available before the arrest of accused. 58. Even if we assume and believe that the specimen hand writing was given by accused voluntarily and the letter in question Exhibit-P/3 or P/38 and specimen letters were not prepared at the same time, by giving leeway to the prosecution, there is nothing with us to connect Chandra Prakash @ Chandu with the crime except the opinion of the hand writing expert. No corroboration is coming forward to lend support to the opinion of the hand writing expert. 59. In N. Mani vs. State by Deputy Superintendent of Police CBCID, Metro Wing, Chennai, reported in 2012(2) MLJ Cr. 594, Single Judge of Madras High Court relying upon various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in absence of corroborative evidence, opinion of the hand writing expert is not sufficient to sustain conviction of the accused. While agreeing with the reasoning propounded in N. Mani's case (supra) we reproduce Para 22, 23, 24, 25 of the said judgment as under: 22. Even assuming it to be true that the specimen signatures and hand writings are obtained from A1 Mani lawfully and in accordance with the procedure and there is no reason to ignore the opinion of the handwriting expert supporting the case of the prosecution that A1 Mani committed the act of forgery by altering the payee name and date in the cheque and by opening the account in fictitious name for the purpose of presenting the fabricated cheque as genuine and encashed and misappropriated the money for his own use, the next question arises for consideration herein is as to whether the expert opinion can be the sole basis for deciding guilty or otherwise of the accused for the charges framed against him. 23. In the foregoing paragraphs, the first ground based on which the finding of conviction i.e., identification of the accused as that of the person who opened a new account in fictitious name and who presented the fabricated cheque, encashed it, got the money credited into such new account and withdrew the money, is held to be not established. 23. In the foregoing paragraphs, the first ground based on which the finding of conviction i.e., identification of the accused as that of the person who opened a new account in fictitious name and who presented the fabricated cheque, encashed it, got the money credited into such new account and withdrew the money, is held to be not established. In that event, the other incriminating substance available against the accused is Ex.P13 expert opinion and Ex.P14 reasoning sheet. This Court after due analysis of the evidence available before this Court, found that there is no other independent and reliable evidence to corroborate the opinion of handwriting expert about the participation of the accused in the commission of any of the acts in the manner as referred to above. 24. In the absence of such corroborating evidence, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused seriously argued that it is not safe to rely upon without other reliable independent evidence, the uncorroborated evidence of handwriting expert to base an order of conviction. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has in order to fortify his contention cited the following catena of judgments of Apex Court, our High court and other High courts. (i) AIR 1957 SC 381 Ram Chandra vs.. State of UP - unsafe to treat expert handwriting opinion as sufficient basis for conviction, but it may be relied upon when supported by other items of internal and external evidence; (ii) AIR 1963 SC 1738 in Iswhari Prasad Misra vs. Mohamead Isa; 2003 1 CTC 223 Madras in K.Dhanasekaran vs. State by Inspector of Police, CBCID, Erode -Evidence of expert opinion is not corroborated by either clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. Conviction based on uncorroborated opinion liable to be set aside; (iii) AIR 1964 SC 529 Constitution Bench, Shasi Kumar Banerjee vs. Subodh Kumar Banerjee -experts evidence as to handwriting is opinion evidence and it can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Conviction based on uncorroborated opinion liable to be set aside; (iii) AIR 1964 SC 529 Constitution Bench, Shasi Kumar Banerjee vs. Subodh Kumar Banerjee -experts evidence as to handwriting is opinion evidence and it can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence it is useful to see if it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence; (iv) AIR 1964 SC 1326 Fakruddin vs. State of M.P, - it would be risky to found a conviction solely on the evidence of a handwriting expert and before acting upon such evidence, the court must always try to see whether it is corroborated by other evidence, direct or circumstantial; (v) AIR 1973 SC 1346 in Bhagwan Kaur vs. Shri Maharaj Krishnan Sharma and others -the evidence of handwriting expert unlike that of the fingerprint expert is generally of a frail character and its fallibilities have been quite often noticed. The court should, therefore be wary to give too much weight to the evidence of handwriting expert; (vi) AIR 1954 SC 136 in Kishore Chandra vs. Ganesh Prasad) -conviction based on mere comparison of handwriting must at best be indecisive and yield to positive evidence in the case; (vii) AIR 1977 SC 1091 (Magan Bihari Lal vs. State of Punjab) -the science of identification of finger prints is absolutely reliable and perfect as compared to imperfect nature of science of handwritings and signatures; (viii) AIR 1980 SC 531 (Murarilal vs. State of M.P) -though there was neither rule of law nor any rule of prudence, which has crystalized into a rule of law, the opinion of the handwriting expert never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated and the science of identification of handwriting, being in imperfect nature, the approach should be one of caution; and (ix) 1996 CLJ 3237 SC in S.Gopal Reddy vs. State of AP; 1995 SCC (Crl.) 837 in Inderjit Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others; AIR 1992 SC 2100 in State of Maharastra vs. Sudhdeo Singh and another; 1977 Crl. LJ pg.711 in Magan Bihari lal vs. the State of Punjab -expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution. 25. That being the factual and legal position regarding the science of identification of handwriting, no serious reliance can be attached to Ex.P13 expert opinion. LJ pg.711 in Magan Bihari lal vs. the State of Punjab -expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution. 25. That being the factual and legal position regarding the science of identification of handwriting, no serious reliance can be attached to Ex.P13 expert opinion. Thus, this Court, for the discussion held above, is of the view that both the grounds on which the trial court as well as the lower appellate court found the accused guilty, have no legal basis and contrary to well settled legal position and are legally and factually unsustainable and the finding is hence totally perverse and legally vitiated and the same deserves interference by this Court." 60. In view of the legal position noted by and deficiency in the evidence led qua the accused Chandra Prakash @ Chandu, we are of the view that opinion of hand writing expert Exhibit P/56 is to be ignored. Therefore, the conviction recorded against Chandra Prakash @ Chandu, appellant to D.B. Criminal Appeal No.950/2004, cannot be sustained and the letter demanding ransom is to be excluded from consideration. 61. Once, we discard the letter demanding ransom there is no other evidence on record regarding demand of ransom by the accused. It is not the case of the prosecution that any accused orally conveyed the demand of ransom, or any of the witness had received any telephonic message. The entire case of prosecution regarding demand of ransom is based upon letter (Exhibit-P/3 or P/38). 62. By exclusion of the letter demanding ransom, and there being no other evidence available, in our view, offence under Section 364-A IPC shall fail as essential ingredient of Section 364-A is kidnapping from ransom. There is no evidence with us that in the present case kidnapping/abduction was done by he accused in order to murder the child, rather it has come in evidence of Bhagwan Singh (PW-10), the victim that he was kept in a Mandir or in a hut. He was permitted to go to the banks of the river to ease himself. He was fed with Roti and Jalebi. Evidence has also come that he had stayed with family of Laxmi, with whom accused appellant Dwarka Lal was married. It has also come in evidence that accused by giving Rs.20/- to the victim had made him board the bus towards Patan. He was fed with Roti and Jalebi. Evidence has also come that he had stayed with family of Laxmi, with whom accused appellant Dwarka Lal was married. It has also come in evidence that accused by giving Rs.20/- to the victim had made him board the bus towards Patan. The victim alighted at the bus stand and was found by Dilraj (PW-8) and Shafi Mohammad (PW-9), who informed the police and the police handed over the custody of the child. Thus, at the most, we can say that in the present case, child was kidnapped or abducted with intend to confine him secretly or wrongfully and he was taken away by deceitful means from the lawful guardianship of his father. Therefore, offence in the present case shall fall under Section 365 IPC. 63. After arriving at the conclusion that offence u/Sec. 395 IPC is made out and there is no sufficient evidence to connect accused Chandra Prakash @ Chandu with the crime, we have to determine the role of each accused. 64. Bhagwan singh (PW-10), the victim in cross-examination has stated that Dwarka Lal son of Rodu Lal, is a resident of his village and right from the beginning till end, he never met him. ^^}kjdkyky iq= jksMw yky cSjok eqyfte gekjs xkao dk gh gSA ;g 'kq: ls vkf[kj rd bl ?kVukØe esa dgha Hkh gekjs lkFk ugha jgkA eSa ikVu cl LVs.M ls vius firk ds lkFk vius /kj pyk x;k mlds 3&4 fnu ckn gh Fkkus esa eq>s ys x;s ogk eqyfteku dks fn[kk;k Fkk eSaus eqyfteku dks Fkkus esa ns[kkA mlds 5&6 fnu ckn tsy esa ns[ks FksA** 65. Therefore, the victim Bhagwan Singh specifically absolved Dwarka Lal as one who had participated in the occurrence. For sake of argument even if above part of statement emerging in Bhagwan Singh's evidence is kept aside, there is no other admissible evidence on record to connect Dwarka Lal with crime, except that he was identified by the victim during TIP and identified in the Court. We shall extend the benefit of admission made by the victim in cross-examination to Dwarka Lal, as it has come in the evidence of Bajrang Lal (PW-4), father of the victim that he had purchased a Bada for Rs. 33,000/- from father of the accused Dwarka Lal. We shall extend the benefit of admission made by the victim in cross-examination to Dwarka Lal, as it has come in the evidence of Bajrang Lal (PW-4), father of the victim that he had purchased a Bada for Rs. 33,000/- from father of the accused Dwarka Lal. It has also come in the evidence of Khemchand (PW-31) that Bajrang Lal had purchased a Bada from Dwarka due to which dispute was going on between them. Thus, we cannot rule out that Dwarka Lal due to strained relations may have been implicated by he family of the victim. Thus, we shall extend benefit of doubt to Dwarka Lal, the appellant. 66. Now, we shall consider the role of appellant Narayan @ Ram Narayan, and Nanda @ Nand Singh. It is true that Bhagwan Singh (PW-10), in the Court has stated that before TIP conducted, all accused were shown to him in the police station. Even if we ignore the identification made by Bhagwan Singh,yet Dwarka Lal (PW-29) in TIP has identified Narayan @ Ram Narayan, as one who came on Splendor motorcycle and took away Bhagwan Singh (PW-10) by deceitful means. Narayan @ Ram Narayan had told Dwarka Lal (PW-29) that his father has purchased motorcycle and his younger brother is required for performing arti. Identification of Narayan @ Ram Narayan by Dwarka Lal (PW-29) suffers from no blemish. Thus, it stands proved that Narayan @ Ram Narayan had taken Bhagwan Singh (PW-10), the victim from the rented room, where he was living with Dwarka Lal (PW-29), from Ratlai. 67. So far as accused Nanda @ Nand Singh is concerned, his brother-in-law Ghanshyam (PW-12), his wife Laxmi (PW-13), Bhabhi of his wife, Smt. Santosh Bai (PW-14) and his mother-in-law Smt. Mooli Bai (PW-15), have also stated that Nandu @ Nand Singh brought a child who disclosed his name as Bhagwan Singh and had stayed at their house. The oral suggestion advanced at the behest of the accused Nanda @ Nand Singh that his relation with his wife were estranged, therefore, they have deposed against him, has not been substantiated. No matrimonial dispute is pending before any public authority or Court. Therefore, evidence of all these witnesses that Nanda @ Nand singh had brought child in their house cannot be disbelieved. 68. No matrimonial dispute is pending before any public authority or Court. Therefore, evidence of all these witnesses that Nanda @ Nand singh had brought child in their house cannot be disbelieved. 68. For sake of argument, even if assume that the relations of Nand @ Nand Singh were estranged with his in-laws, still we cannot ignore testimony of Ramkanya Bai (PW-18), paternal aunt (Bhua) of accused Nanda @ Nand Singh. She has stated in the court that accused had visited her house accompanied by a child, who disclosed his name as Bhagwan Singh. Ram Bharoshe (PW-19), husband of Ramkanya Bai (PW-18), also corroborated her testimony by saying that he was informed by his wife that Nanda @ Nand Singh along with child had come to his house. Thus, identification of Nanda @ Nand Singh and testimony of relatives of Nanda @ Nand Singh leave no escape route for this appellant. 69. Consequently, as a result of above discussion, we accept D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 950/2004, and set aside the conviction and sentence awarded upon the appellant Chandra Prakash @ Chandu and acquit him of the charges. 70. We also extend benefit of doubt to accused Dwarka Lal, one of the appellants in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.1231/2004 and also set aside the conviction and sentence awarded upon him and acquit him of the charges. 71. Because of deficiency in the prosecution case to prove demand of ransom, doubt cast upon admissibility of letter and, it being unsafe to rely upon opinion of handwriting expert without any corroboration, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove charge qua offence under Section 364-A IPC. Thus, we set aside the conviction of appellant Narayan @ Ram Narayan and Nanda @ Nand Singh, for offence under Section 364-A IPC by holding them responsible for offence under Section 365 IPC, and as necessary corollary thereof, we set aside the sentence of life imprisonment awarded upon the appellant Narayan @ Ram Narayan and Nanda @ Nand Singh and sentence them to seven years' R.I. for offence under Section 365 IPC. 72. Therefore, by converting offence from 364-A IPC to 365 IPC, and modification in sentence in above terms, D.B. Criminal Appeal No.1231/2004 qua appellant Narayan @ Ram Narayan and Nanda @ Nand Singh is disposed of. As stated earlier, appellants Chandra Prakash @ Chandu and Dwarka Lal stand acquitted. 73. 72. Therefore, by converting offence from 364-A IPC to 365 IPC, and modification in sentence in above terms, D.B. Criminal Appeal No.1231/2004 qua appellant Narayan @ Ram Narayan and Nanda @ Nand Singh is disposed of. As stated earlier, appellants Chandra Prakash @ Chandu and Dwarka Lal stand acquitted. 73. In view of the acceptance of these appeal on behalf of two appellants, namely Chandra Prakash @ Chandu and Dwarka Lal, we order that Dwarka Lal be released forthwith, if not required in any other case, and Chandra Prakash @ Chandu who is already on bail, be discharged from the bonds already furnished by him or on his behalf. 74. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants, namely Chandra Prakash @ Chandu and Dwarka Lal are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) and a surety bond in the like amount each, before the trial Court. The bonds, so furnished shall be effective for a period of six months. The bonds shall contain an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or on grant of leave, the appellants, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Apex Court.